Case # 141

DEWARA VS LAMELA
G.R. NO. 179010 April 11, 2011 647 SCRA 483

FACTS:
Eduardo Dewara (Eduardo) and petitioner Elenita Magallanes Dewara (Elenita) were married before the enactment of the Family
Code. Thus, the Civil Code governed their marital relations. Husband and wife were separated-in-fact because Elenita went to
work in California, United States of America, while Eduardo stayed in Bacolod City.

Eduardo, while driving a private jeep registered in the name of Elenita, hit respondent Ronnie Lamela (Ronnie). Ronnie filed a
criminal case for serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence against Eduardo found Eduardo guilty of the charge and
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of two months and one (1) day to (3) months, and to pay civil indemnity of
Sixty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Ninety-Eight Pesos and Seventy Centavos (P62, 598.70) levy on Lot No. 234-C, Psd. 26667 of the
Bacolod Cadastre... l... in the name of "ELENITA M. DEWARA... married to Eduardo Dewara.

Thus, Elenita, represented by her attorney-in-fact, Ferdinand Magallanes, filed a case for annulment of sale. Petitioner claimed
that the levy on execution of Lot No. 234-C was illegal because the said property was her paraphernalia or exclusive property and
could not be made to answer for the personal liability of her husband. Furthermore, as the registered owner of the property, she
received no notice of the execution sale.

Respondent spouses averred that the subject lot was the conjugal property of petitioner Elenita and Eduardo. They asserted that
the property was acquired by Elenita during her marriage to Eduardo; that the property was acquired with the money of Eduardo
because, at the time of the acquisition of the property, Elenita was a plain housewife; that the jeep involved in the accident was
registered in the name of petitioner; and that Elenita did not interpose any objection pending the levy on execution of the
property.

There is no dispute that the subject property was acquired by spouses Elenita and Eduardo during their marriage

Aside from the assertions of Elenita that the sale of the property by her father and her aunt was in the nature of a donation
because of the alleged gross disparity between the actual value of the property and the monetary consideration for the sale, there
is no other evidence that would convince this Court of the paraphernalia character of the property.

The records are bereft of proof that the consent of petitioner's father and her aunt were vitiated or that, in reality, they intended
the sale to be a donation or some other contract.

ISSUE:
The sole issue for resolution is whether the subject property is the paraphernalia/exclusive property of Elenita or the conjugal
property of spouses Elenita and Eduardo.

RULING:
It is just and proper that Ronnie be compensated for the serious physical injuries he suffered. It should be remembered that even
though the vehicle that hit Ronnie was registered in the name of Elenita, she was not made a party in the said criminal case. Thus,
she may not be compelled to answer for Eduardo's liability. Nevertheless, their conjugal partnership property may be held
accountable for it since Eduardo has no property in his name.

Case # 142
TARROSA V. DE LEON
G.R. NO. 185063 July 23, 2009 593 SCRA 768
FACTS:
On July 20, 1965, Bonifacio De Leon, then single, and the People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation (PHHC) entered
into a Conditional Contract to sell for the purchase on installment of a lot situated in Quezon City. On April 24, 1968,
Bonifacio married Anita de Leon. They had two children, Danilo and Vilma. On June 22, 1970, PHHC executed a Final
Deed of Sale in favor of Bonifacio upon full payment of the price of the lot. TCT was issued on February 24, 1972 in the
name of Bonifacio, “single.” On January 12, 1974, Bonifacio sold the lot to his sister, Lita, and her husband, Felix
Tarrosa. The Deed of Sale did not bear the written consent and signature of Anita. On February 29, 1996, Bonifacio
died.
Three months later, Tarrosa spouses registered the Deed of Sale. Anita, Danilo, and Vilma filed a reconveyance suit
allegeing that Bonifacio was still the owner of the lands. Tarrosa spouses averred that the lot Bonifacio sold to them
was his exclusive property because he was still single when he acquired it from PHHC. They further alleged that they
were not aware of the marriage between Bonifacio and Anita at the time of the execution of the Deed of Sale.

The RTC ruled in favor of Anita De Leon et al stating that the lot in question was the conjugal property of Bonifacio
and Anita. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
W/N the property that Bonifacio has purchased on installment before the marriage although some installments were
paid during the marriage would be considered conjugal property

HELD:
Yes. The subject lot which was once owned by PHHC and covered by the Conditional Contract to sell was only
transferred during the marriage of Bonifacio and Anita. The title to the property was only passed to Bonifacio after he
had fully paid the purchase price on June 22, 1970. This full payment was made more than 2 years after his marriage
to Anita on April 24, 1968. In effect, the property was acquired during the existence of the marriage. Hence, ownership
to the property is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership.

Case # 143